Posted on 03/19/2010 4:56:11 PM PDT by chessplayer
What if Darwin's theory of natural selection is inaccurate? What if the way you live now affects the life expectancy of your descendants?
(Excerpt) Read more at guardian.co.uk ...
I do not have “faith only in science”. I am a man of faith and my faith is in God and our Lord Jesus Christ.
I do have confidence in the scientific method. And I do not scorn all other methods of knowing truth. Science doesn’t lead to TRUTH, it leads to an accurate model with predictable results.
The model of an atom may or may not be “true”, but it IS useful. And thus the model persists until scientists find a more useful model.
It was you who scorned a methodology that allows people to live in a non-primitive fashion and gains them useful and predictive knowledge of the physical world we inhabit as “primitive” and “ignorant”. I am sorry if I was harsh or conceited in striking down such a preposterous notion.
Tyger! Tyger! burning bright
In the forests of the night,
What immortal hand or eye
Could frame thy fearful symmetry?
In what distant deeps or skies
Burnt the fire of thine eyes?
On what wings dare he aspire?
What the hand dare sieze the fire?
And what shoulder, & what art.
Could twist the sinews of thy heart?
And when thy heart began to beat,
What dread hand? & what dread feet?
What the hammer? what the chain?
In what furnace was thy brain?
What the anvil? what dread grasp
Dare its deadly terrors clasp?
When the stars threw down their spears,
And watered heaven with their tears,
Did he smile his work to see?
Did he who made the Lamb make thee?
Tyger! Tyger! burning bright
In the forests of the night,
What immortal hand or eye
Dare frame thy fearful symmetry?
No, I said that you have offered no more than what the type of belief called faith is fundamentally based on. If you have something else, it's up to you to present it, because it's impossible for me to otherwise know what it is.
I also said that effort, work and the degree of examination of what is fundamentally just testimony is irrelevant. That's because effort and the results of any examination of testimony can not change the nature of what testimony is. Effort and the nature of any examination can only effect the testimony itself.
"You wanted "evidence" for my "claim" that: If God did not exist, neither would the world. All I have is witness testimony — and the fact that I can see and appreciate that this world in which we live is not a "garbage heap strewn at random." But to say as much is still "only" witness testimony. "
Yes, it is only witness testimony. What's wrong with that? That's all Jesus had and He was pleased with it. Matt 11:25-26 "At that time Jesus said, "I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children. Yes, Father, for this was your good pleasure."
"What sort of evidence satisfies your discriminating taste?
It depends on what the claim is that one is presenting evidence for. If it's a claim regarding some element of reality, I expect real evidence that can be examined by the scientific method and logical coherence of any testimony with that evidence and the total picture the real world presents itself as. I also expect perfect logical coherence with that rational picture of the world in any testimonial claims.
"Can the scientific method even DEAL with questions like this?"
Yes. The rationality and scientific method allows the nature of the real world, the universe to be seen and understood. It allows man to be known and understood. Any testimony can be weighed against that knowledge and understanding of reality for rational/logical coherence.
[ “If God did not exist, neither would the world.”- BB
That’s a claim based on what you have heard and read. Where’s your evidence for such a claim, that anyone can examine at will by the scientific method? -spunkets ]
Because things do not just happen except in Paris Hiltons world..
There is literally no way to determine exactly what caused it all to begin..
Why not God?.. the big bang is, of course, a theory..
as would be any other form of logical “if’n”...
Science fiction MUST be logical else whats the point.. who would entertain it?..
Science fact need not be logical at all.. nothing to prove... i.e. no agenda
I am wondering why you quoted William Blake, who I don’t think would see eye to eye with you very much.
I do not scorn all science as useless, talking about straw men.
You are slithery and not an honest debater.
Sciencer is merely a mundane set of tools and theories, created by human imperfect minds, and can see with a flickering penlight, as I mentioned above. And can only see some - very little - of the wonders of this universe, and can see nothing of transcendence.
I do have confidence in the scientific method. And I do not scorn all other methods of knowing truth. Science doesn’t lead to TRUTH, it leads to an accurate model with predictable results.
You're really stretching your credibility with that statement considering that you make science the measure of all things, and that with which you measure the Bible by.
When you reject the Word of God and adjust and manipulate it to fit your evolutionary worldview, you ARE putting your faith in science and putting it over your faith in God.
You are trusting that science is capable of giving you a more correct and accurate picture or account of what happened in the past than what God told us in His Word. That is choosing the god you want to follow.
You certainly do scorn all other methods of knowing truth. Your pejoratives against anyone who rejects current scientific consensus demonstrates that beyond any doubt. Your posting history on crevo threads, and other threads for that matter, bears it out.
Fiction never is logically consistent with reality. That's just the nature of fiction.
"Science fact need not be logical at all."
facts must be true. That relationship of facts and reality itself must be perfectly logical, or reality could not exist.
"There is literally no way to determine exactly what caused it all to begin.
Reality can be examined. The universe can be seen to arise as a phase transition from what already existed. There's no logical reason needed to know that there was no beginnig for what always existed. In fact the law of conservation of energy insists that what exists has no beginning.
" the big bang is, of course, a theory."
Nevertheless, it is a theory, because there's plenty of evidence for it. It's the beginning that is logically consistent with Genesis and John.
"Why not God?"
God's concern is with eternal life. He provided no evidence that He created the universe, because He had reason to not to. What He did provide is the sign of Jonah, the Holy Spirit. Matt 12:39 He answered, "A wicked and adulterous generation asks for a miraculous sign! But none will be given it except the sign of the prophet Jonah. If one is concerned with providing scientific evidence that God created the universe, they are simply attempting to provide a miracle that God said He would never provide.
If one is concerned with the testimony of the Holy Spirit and holds the same values, then the logical consistency of Genesis and the NT with the results compiled by science is sufficent for sound belief by the Epicurus Priciple- keep all theories consistent with the evidence.
On the contrary..... He tells us He did.
The first and foremost reason is that He tells us in Genesis that He did. And there are a multitude of other verses that support it, in addition to the teachings of Jesus.
Piety is not measured by how out of whack your cosmology is from reality. I don't believe that the Bible means the same preposterous things you have convinced yourself it means. That doesn't mean I am less of a believer.
After all, by that standard our resident Geocentric creationists would be the most pious of all, and they think it is YOU who are putting evidence above the Word of God.
//You are slithery and not an honest debater.//
Evos never are, deception is at their core along with hatred of truth.
Thanks for the insight into the psyche of the evolutionist. Its always the same, a dead place. Our journey through this mystery is ultimately a solo one and thank heaven for that. The evolutionist cannot force a man to accept his ideology any more than the taliban can force a man to accept Islam
Beware Arjuna, those who worship lessor gods will go onto them
That's all testimony and some is parable.
WELL PUT.
AND ACCURATE, imho.
Thx.
Well put . . .
though . . . with natural crystals . . .
AMEN! AMEN! AMEN! AMEN! AMEN! AMEN! AMEN!
INDEED TO THE MAX.
I have rarely felt that pseudo-super-rationalists were
SERIOUSLY interest in any authentic
QUEST FOR THE TRUTH.
Instead, they seem to have a burr in their saddle for a variety of reasons—all of them fostering some level of bitterness or hostility toward God and/or other authority figures—usually for some kind of degree or type of Reactive Attachment Disorder or for some tragedy in their lives for which they blame God whom they deny the existence of.
Really rational, that.
IF they were really authentically on a QUEST FOR TRUTH,
THEN their perspectives and attitudes would be more broadly based and more reality based instead of the rigid narrow fantasy world of their own creation.
INDEED.
WELL PUT.
THX.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.